Harry Potter = Witchcraft?

[HannahBanana]

Under the Law it wouldn't be considered witchcraft. But we are under faith, which is much more stringent. For example, under the Law, you had to run a knife into somebody in order to be considered a murderer. Under the system of faith, all you have to do is call someone stupid, or a fool, etc. All you have to do is to hate them. In the same way, under the Law, only legit witchcraft would be considered a sin. Under faith, anything resembling a sin (such as witchcraft) is a sin.

But that just makes no sense at all, since there's no reason to punish people when they haven't even done anything wrong. After all, just because someone does something that resembles a sin doesn't mean that they've actually sinned. And the fact that you think that God does think of that as a sin just goes to show how ridiculous God's standards are. I mean, does God really expect us to monitor our every action so that we don't do anything that even remotely resembles a sin? If so, then he's being completely unreasonable, since it's not possible to live a productive, healthy life while constantly monitoring every single action you make.

Actually, it does. (Wish I had the time to develop this a bit more, but I have a greek test I have to study for!) Sin is not an action necessarily; it's in the heart.

If that were true, then fleeting thoughts of lust would be sinful. Yet we can't control our fleeting thoughts, so it would make no sense to say that they can be sinful.

Good luck on your test, by the way!

It has the similitude of witchcraft.

So what? Like I said above, unless God is being unreasonable, there is no reason for people to have to worry about doing things that aren't directly sinful.

I somehow doubt it.

Why exactly do you doubt that? After all, I've read actual, unbiased, factually-accurate books about Wicca and Witchcraft (such as those by Scott Cunningham and Margot Adler), while it seems like all you've read are biased, factually-inaccurate books about how horrible Wicca and Witchcraft are. I apologize if I'm wrong about that, but that's just how it seems to me from what you've said so far about Wicca and Witchcraft.

 

[Kol]

But that just makes no sense at all, since there's no reason to punish people when they haven't even done anything wrong.

None of it has to do with punishment; it all has to do with one's inner character, mindset, and heart. Not all sins require action: there are, for example, sins of omission.

After all, just because someone does something that resembles a sin doesn't mean that they've actually sinned. And the fact that you think that God does think of that as a sin just goes to show how ridiculous God's standards are. I mean, does God really expect us to monitor our every action so that we don't do anything that even remotely resembles a sin? If so, then he's being completely unreasonable, since it's not possible to live a productive, healthy life while constantly monitoring every single action you make.

Uh, yeah, that's why we need divine intervention. God's standards are a lot stricter than any man-made religion. Christianity is (as I know you know) a faith where the diety says "you can never be this holy, so I have to make you that way." In other faiths, man can do things on his own. Not this one. God wants you to be holy more than he wants you to understand things.

As far as witchcraft goes, I'll say this: it limits you. Witchcraft ties you into reality, which is sad when compared alongside Christianity, which gives you access to a god who is beyond reality.

Night.

 

[HannahBanana]

None of it has to do with punishment; it all has to do with one's inner character, mindset, and heart. Not all sins require action: there are, for example, sins of omission.

Okay, maybe I should have said "there's no reason to make people feel guilty" rather than "there's no reason to punish people." I do admit that that was a poor choice of words on my part.

Uh, yeah, that's why we need divine intervention. God's standards are a lot stricter than any man-made religion. Christianity is (as I know you know) a faith where the diety says "you can never be this holy, so I have to make you that way." In other faiths, man can do things on his own. Not this one. God wants you to be holy more than he wants you to understand things.

But it's impossible for human beings to be completely holy, so what you're saying is that God holds us to an impossible standard. What kind of loving being would hold his own creations to an impossible standard?

As far as witchcraft goes, I'll say this: it limits you. Witchcraft ties you into reality, which is sad when compared alongside Christianity, which gives you access to a god who is beyond reality.

What exactly is realistic about the concept of casting spells on people and believing that a god and a goddess created this world and everything in it? Wicca is just as based in fantasy as Christianity is (no offense meant to you as a Christian, but fantasy is the opposite of reality), since it's a religion in and of itself. It seems to me like you seem to think that Witchcraft is an element of atheism (since, after all, atheists are the only people in this world who really live in reality), and that's not true at all. Sure, atheists can practice Witchcraft, but most Witches aren't atheists, they're Wiccans.

Night.

Night. It's been fun debating with you.

 

[coolchicka]

I dont read hs books/watch his movies just to be safe.

 

[HannahBanana]

I dont read hs books/watch his movies just to be safe.

But the books and movies don't contain any sort of real Witchcraft or Wiccan spells. So there is no reason for you to avoid watching or reading them.

 

[ForHisGlory2009]

Under the Law it wouldn't be considered witchcraft. But we are under faith, which is much more stringent. For example, under the Law, you had to run a knife into somebody in order to be considered a murderer. Under the system of faith, all you have to do is call someone stupid, or a fool, etc. All you have to do is to hate them. In the same way, under the Law, only legit witchcraft would be considered a sin. Under faith, anything resembling a sin (such as witchcraft) is a sin.



Actually, it does. (Wish I had the time to develop this a bit more, but I have a greek test I have to study for!) Sin is not an action necessarily; it's in the heart.



It has the similitude of witchcraft.



I somehow doubt it.

Good Post Once again

I don't see how the witch trials have anything to do with witchcraft. Are you saying that all the people killed through the ages under the name of witchcraft were actually witches? Wow.

All people are inherently bad. Isn't that a basic tenet of Christianity?

Edit: you must be messing with me here...

Another Good post

None of it has to do with punishment; it all has to do with one's inner character, mindset, and heart. Not all sins require action: there are, for example, sins of omission.

After all, just because someone does something that resembles a sin doesn't mean that they've actually sinned. And the fact that you think that God does think of that as a sin just goes to show how ridiculous God's standards are. I mean, does God really expect us to monitor our every action so that we don't do anything that even remotely resembles a sin? If so, then he's being completely unreasonable, since it's not possible to live a productive, healthy life while constantly monitoring every single action you make.

Uh, yeah, that's why we need divine intervention. God's standards are a lot stricter than any man-made religion. Christianity is (as I know you know) a faith where the diety says "you can never be this holy, so I have to make you that way." In other faiths, man can do things on his own. Not this one. God wants you to be holy more than he wants you to understand things.

As far as witchcraft goes, I'll say this: it limits you. Witchcraft ties you into reality, which is sad when compared alongside Christianity, which gives you access to a god who is beyond reality.

Night.

Just had to quote this one too

Okay, maybe I should have said "there's no reason to make people feel guilty" rather than "there's no reason to punish people." I do admit that that was a poor choice of words on my part.

But it's not about making people feel guilty. I didn't get to read/quote what you was refering. We are just pointing out what the bible says about witchcraft, it's not about feeling guilty, it's about sharing the truth with others, it's about hope if they happen to feel guilty about anything we have mentioned that they search why they feel that way, is it simply because they don't believe it, or is it because they do believe it but in believing they make themselves even more accountable to change what they see.

I can't make anyone change their opinion all I can do, is show them the truth. If I was in that situation I would want someone to share the truth with me and not sugar coat it or water it down. But I would hope that they would do some research just to see what they are possibly getting themselves into.

But it's impossible for human beings to be completely holy, so what you're saying is that God holds us to an impossible standard. What kind of loving being would hold his own creations to an impossible standard?

It is impossible to be holy and pure by ourselves but with the help of God it isn't an impossible standard. We are not suppose to be conformed to the worlds' way of doing things, we are suppose to be set apart but we can only accomplish that with God.


What exactly is realistic about the concept of casting spells on people and believing that a god and a goddess created this world and everything in it? Wicca is just as based in fantasy as Christianity is (no offense meant to you as a Christian, but fantasy is the opposite of reality), But see the thing is people believe it's fake, it isn't fake it's real. It's not just simply that person doing it, there is a power behind that. With being a christian we rely on our faith just like the christian faith is real the wicca faith is too. They are just serving too different purposes. since it's a religion in and of itself. It seems to me like you seem to think that Witchcraft is an element of atheism (since, after all, atheists are the only people in this world who really live in reality), and that's not true at all. Sure, atheists can practice Witchcraft, but most Witches aren't atheists, they're Wiccans.

Aithest can really be considered as a religion as well. If a athesist is a witch then in a sense they aren't really aithest.

Night. It's been fun debating with you.

I dont read hs books/watch his movies just to be safe.

I understand where your coming from, reminds me of the old wise saying better to be safe than sorry

 

[HannahBanana]

ForHisGlory, you cannot prove that your beliefs are more truthful than a Wiccan's beliefs are (and no, the Bible doesn't count as proof, since you can't prove that it's anything more than just an ordinary book), so it makes no sense to say that your beliefs are somehow more truthful than a Wiccan's beliefs are, not to mention it's quite rude of you to say that. Why not just learn to accept that all religious beliefs are equally valid and drop the whole "holier-than-thou" attitude?

 

[Kol]

ForHisGlory, you cannot prove that your beliefs are more truthful than a Wiccan's beliefs are (and no, the Bible doesn't count as proof, since you can't prove that it's anything more than just an ordinary book), so it makes no sense to say that your beliefs are somehow more truthful than a Wiccan's beliefs are, not to mention it's quite rude of you to say that.

We're all discussing matters of faith, which makes it hard to say what's true or untrue. How is it rude though, for someone to say his belief of truth is true? That's like saying, "you can have your own take on things, but you can't really have your own take on things." "You can be a football player, but it's rude to play football." "You can be a Christian, but you can't profess that faith."

Why not just learn to accept that all religious beliefs are equally valid and drop the whole "holier-than-thou" attitude?

Because they are mutually exclusive. Either Christ is risen from the dead, or he's not. If what I see is true, and what you see is true, and those two things don't agree, that doesn't make both things true, it makes our judgement invalid. This is why Christians have faith in what they can't see: because we accept that everyone's individual sight is invalid. So thanks for proving our point.

Holiness has to do with closeness to God. It has nothing to do with you, Hannah. FHGlory can't offend you with his holiness, since that holiness is only between himself and his god. I believe the word you're looking for is "right." You should have said, "drop the whole more-right-than-I" attitude.

 

[Kol]

Okay, maybe I should have said "there's no reason to make people feel guilty" rather than "there's no reason to punish people."

I think He agrees. That's why He died for us.

But it's impossible for human beings to be completely holy, so what you're saying is that God holds us to an impossible standard. What kind of loving being would hold his own creations to an impossible standard?

It's not impossible to be holy. It's impossible to be perfect, only because our flesh bodies are corrupted. The spiritual nature can be restored; the flesh can't. When Christians say we can't be perfect, this (if their theology is correct) is what they mean. God is defined by His concept of love, not yours. He holds them to a standard He sets, and when we fail to meet that standard, He helps us. "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." And, "For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." So the point isn't blame, but realizing that there is an impossible standard, and that there is a way to attain it.

Why would I think an aethiest would be a wiccan? Doesn't being wiccan imply the belief in a plethora of gods? Seems like you're just out for an argument. Little of this even has to do with harry potter anymore...

 

[HannahBanana]

We're all discussing matters of faith, which makes it hard to say what's true or untrue. How is it rude though, for someone to say his belief of truth is true? That's like saying, "you can have your own take on things, but you can't really have your own take on things." "You can be a football player, but it's rude to play football." "You can be a Christian, but you can't profess that faith."

But it's completely possible to have your own opinion on things without saying that others' opinions are wrong. It's called "being respectful of others' opinions."

Because they are mutually exclusive. Either Christ is risen from the dead, or he's not. If what I see is true, and what you see is true, and those two things don't agree, that doesn't make both things true, it makes our judgement invalid. This is why Christians have faith in what they can't see: because we accept that everyone's individual sight is invalid. So thanks for proving our point.

I'm not saying that Christians should believe that all religions are true. I'm saying that all Christians should accept that all religions have an equal possiblity of being true, and it's completely possible to believe that without running into any problems with the mutual exclusivity of all religions. After all, the possibility of something is not the same thing as the reality of something.

Holiness has to do with closeness to God. It has nothing to do with you, Hannah. FHGlory can't offend you with his holiness, since that holiness is only between himself and his god. I believe the word you're looking for is "right." You should have said, "drop the whole more-right-than-I" attitude.

She's not more right, though, since religion is based on faith, not facts, and faith cannot be proven to be right or wrong like facts can.

And have you seriously never heard the term "holier than thou" in describing certain types of religious people? It's a common term used when religious people are displaying a large amount of arrogance, like ForHisGlory was.

 

[HannahBanana]

I think He agrees. That's why He died for us.

He died for us so that we would feel guilty for doing things wrong? It seems like you misread that section that you quoted.

It's not impossible to be holy. It's impossible to be perfect, only because our flesh bodies are corrupted.

But true holiness is perfection, since Jesus was truly holy. So yes, it is possible to be truly holy, so my point still stands.

God is defined by His concept of love, not yours.

Such as the "love" he showed to the millions of people he killed throughout the Old Testament, or the "love" he showed to Eve when he punished her for eating the apple, even though he's all-knowing, which means that he knew in advance that she would eat the apple? That doesn't seem very "loving" to me. But I'm sure you'll find some excuse for that, such as "we aren't supposed to understand God's ways" or some bullhonkey like that.

Why would I think an aethiest would be a wiccan? Doesn't being wiccan imply the belief in a plethora of gods?

Yet again you have misread my post. Why is it that you aren't willing to read my posts fully and completely, especially when I'm willing to show that same courtesy to you? I was comparing atheism to Wicca only because you said that Wiccans "live in reality," and I was trying to explain how untrue that is.

Seems like you're just out for an argument. Little of this even has to do with harry potter anymore...

You're the only one here who's arguing, since you're the one putting words in peoples' mouths.

 

[Kol]

But it's completely possible to have your own opinion on things without saying that others' opinions are wrong.

Not in every situation. Either my car needs brakes or it doesn't. I can try to drive without them, I can have the opinion that I don't need them, but when it comes to the point where I have to make a sudden stop, reality takes over and expresses itself. Up until that point, I can say whatever I want, and both sides of any argument are equally true, because reality hasn't revealed itself yet. The truth is not yet known. Right now, your faith and my faith are equally valid, because reality hasn't yet been revealed. Either one of us could be right. But in fact, you're wrong; we do need brakes, we do need a savior, and Christ Jesus is the only way to eternal life. Until that aspect of reality is revealed, you can have any opinion you want...but when the truth is made clear, your opinion will no longer be equally valid.

I'm not saying that Christians should believe that all religions are true. I'm saying that all Christians should accept that all religions have an equal possiblity of being true, and it's completely possible to believe that without running into any problems with the mutual exclusivity of all religions. After all, the possibility of something is not the same thing as the reality of something.

I agree. Few of us have any real concept of "faith." See above. But you have to understand that, just like all other religions, most of what you see is dogma. Most Christians are just "nominal"; they are christians in name only, because their parents were christians and we live with such a christian influence....like a state religion. That doesn't make Christianity any more or less true, but you do have to be careful to not confuse the real belief system with the cultural fascimile. (sp?)

She's not more right, though, since religion is based on faith, not facts, and faith cannot be proven to be right or wrong like facts can.

Well then, say that. Say, "she's not more right", not "she's not more holy," because she is more holy, because her god has chosen her and declared her his priest and possession, and that makes her holy to Him.

And have you seriously never heard the term "holier than thou" in describing certain types of religious people? It's a common term used when religious people are displaying a large amount of arrogance.

Yeah, I've heard it. Have you ever heard of non-christians wanting to be christians but not being christians because they can't stand the hypocrisy inherent in any religion, so they quote Biblical aspects and arguments out of context in order to try to drag down actual Christians in order to by effect (seemingly) drag down the entire religion, so they can alleviate their consciences and not feel so bad about being to afraid to make the choice they for some reason feel compelled to make? Just wondering.

 

[HannahBanana]

Not in every situation. Either my car needs brakes or it doesn't. I can try to drive without them, I can have the opinion that I don't need them, but when it comes to the point where I have to make a sudden stop, reality takes over and expresses itself. Up until that point, I can say whatever I want, and both sides of any argument are equally true, because reality hasn't revealed itself yet. The truth is not yet known. Right now, your faith and my faith are equally valid, because reality hasn't yet been revealed. Either one of us could be right. But in fact, you're wrong; we do need brakes, we do need a savior, and Christ Jesus is the only way to eternal life. Until that aspect of reality is revealed, you can have any opinion you want...but when the truth is made clear, your opinion will no longer be equally valid.

But it's not a fact that your religion is the only true religion, though. If it were a fact, you would be able to provide proof to support it. All it is right now is an opinion, and there is no such thing as one opinion being more right than another opinion.

I agree. Few of us have any real concept of "faith." See above. But you have to understand that, just like all other religions, most of what you see is dogma. Most Christians are just "nominal"; they are christians in name only, because their parents were christians and we live with such a christian influence....like a state religion. That doesn't make Christianity any more or less true, but you do have to be careful to not confuse the real belief system with the cultural fascimile. (sp?)

Look up the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and then stop using it.

Well then, say that. Say, "she's not more right", not "she's not more holy," because she is more holy, because her god has chosen her and declared her his priest and possession, and that makes her holy to Him.

Stop picking at hairs. It's just a saying, after all.

Yeah, I've heard it. Have you ever heard of non-christians wanting to be christians but not being christians because they can't stand the hypocrisy inherent in any religion, so they quote Biblical aspects and arguments out of context in order to try to drag down actual Christians in order to by effect (seemingly) drag down the entire religion, so they can alleviate their consciences and not feel so bad about being to afraid to make the choice they for some reason feel compelled to make? Just wondering.

If you're suggesting that I'm doing that, then I'm going to have to ask you for proof that I have quoted anything out of context in order to try to drag anyone down.

 

[Kol]

He died for us so that he could take away our guilt. Sorry if I misread...I don't have very much time these days, and I tend to rush.

Our word holy comes from the same place we get "whole" from, and that's what it means:

1. exalted or worthy of complete devotion.
2. divine
3. devoted entirely to a diety or the work of a diety
4. having a divine quality
5. used as an intensive (he was a holy terror when he drank)

From Merriam-Webster. You don't know what the word means. Holiness could mean perfection as in completion, but that would imply your own desire; the word means complete, but whichever aspect needs completion isn't implied. So you might use it to mean morally complete, but that isn't necessarily the case...i mean, the word can sometimes mean that, but it doesn't have to mean that. Oy vey, grammer.

Such as the "love" he showed to the millions of people he killed throughout the Old Testament, or the "love" he showed to Eve when he punished her for eating the apple, even though he's all-knowing, which means that he knew in advance that she would eat the apple? That doesn't seem very "loving" to me. But I'm sure you'll find some excuse for that, such as "we aren't supposed to understand God's ways" or some bullhonkey like that.

You confuse His holiness for his love. Love is not God's only defining attribute.

Got to go.

 

[Kol]

No true scotsman: okay. But just because something is sometimes not true, doesn't make it always not true. There are true Christians out there. It doesn't have to be imagined. The fallacy doesn't apply.

 

[HannahBanana]

Kol, let me know if and when you want to actually engage in a real, mature debate (which means responding to each and every point I bring up in my posts, not putting words in my mouth, and not picking at hairs). Until then, though, I will ignore your replies to me, as I feel that you're just purposefully trying to frustrate and/or annoy me.

 

[Kol]

You're only annoying yourself.

...there's no reason to punish people when they haven't even done anything wrong...just because someone does something that resembles a sin doesn't mean that they've actually sinned...does God really expect us to monitor our every action so that we don't do anything that even remotely resembles a sin? If so, then he's being completely unreasonable...

If that were true, then fleeting thoughts of lust would be sinful. Yet we can't control our fleeting thoughts, so it would make no sense to say that they can be sinful.

1. Committing the appearance of sin is a sin itself. Fleeting thoughts and enjoying a 2-hour movie on witchcraft are not the same thing. I'm sorry God's standards are too much for you. You have an alternative to obedience.

2. Guilt has an internal locus of control: you are asked to repent, not commanded to. Again, you have an alternative to obedience.

3. An omnipresent God actually does expect to monitor your every action. That's the implication in the word "omnipresent."

What exactly is realistic about the concept of casting spells on people and believing that a god and a goddess created this world and everything in it? Wicca is just as based in fantasy as Christianity is (no offense meant to you as a Christian, but fantasy is the opposite of reality), since it's a religion in and of itself. It seems to me like you seem to think that Witchcraft is an element of atheism (since, after all, atheists are the only people in this world who really live in reality), and that's not true at all. Sure, atheists can practice Witchcraft, but most Witches aren't atheists, they're Wiccans.

Wicca is more based on trial and error in a spiritual manner than blind faith. I don't see how wicca is faith at all: either you continue to do something because it works, or you don't do it. In that sense, Wicca is more "real" than Christianity, because Christianity is based solely on faith. Fantasy is perhaps an antonym for reality, but not for faith and certainly not for systematic theology. Finally, I don't think aetheism and wicca or even witchcraft have anything to do with each other. At times, I don't even see wicca as necessarily involving witchcraft.

Moving on...

No religion is ever going to have physical evidence to support it, because religion involves aspects of reality which we can't see. If we could "prove" a belief system, it ceases to be a belief system and becomes revealed truth. Faith is unrevealed truth. Opinion involves preference. Apprehension of the truth is not opinion, whether right or wrong; it's "belief", "a guess", or "suspicion."

Kol, let me know if and when you want to actually engage in a real, mature debate (which means responding to each and every point I bring up in my posts, not putting words in my mouth, and not picking at hairs). Until then, though, I will ignore your replies to me, as I feel that you're just purposefully trying to frustrate and/or annoy me.

The only power I have is that which you give me. You came here to plow people over, and I'm not letting you do that. I've tried my best to explain where you are wrong in what you've said. Yes, it is true that Christianity is just a grasp at the truth. Yes, it might be wrong. Yes, it is offensive to some people. All perceived truth is so, before it becomes revealed truth. I can't see how I've been immature or put words into your mouth. Perhaps you need to be more clear in what you say, or, as I suspect, clear up your ill-conceived notions of religion, wicca, christianity, and the concept of holiness, before you attempt to discuss those things.

What happened to you? You used to be so cool. I'm not entirely sure you're not just messing with me.

 

[ForHisGlory2009]

ForHisGlory, you cannot prove that your beliefs are more truthful than a Wiccan's beliefs are (and no, the Bible doesn't count as proof, since you can't prove that it's anything more than just an ordinary book), so it makes no sense to say that your beliefs are somehow more truthful than a Wiccan's beliefs are, not to mention it's quite rude of you to say that. Why not just learn to accept that all religious beliefs are equally valid and drop the whole "holier-than-thou" attitude?

I agree with Kol, it's not a matter of being rude. Now if you feel that I am rude because I don't share the same beliefs as you that is a completely different story. I cannot expect that all of them are equally vaild, I can say that alot of them do have some truth to them. No one here is holding a "holier-than-thou attitude" I would have to agree with Kol on this one. But if you feel I have that attitude than maybe it's important to search yourself and see why you are feeling that way. Is it because you simply don't agree with what I believe or is something I am saying convicting you and it's a way to advoid that. Either way you don't have to tell me your answer. So far in this conversation I have not been rude I have basically said what is in the bible as well as knowledge I have gained. But continuely through here and P.M.'s you have have been very rude and scracastic.

But after this post if you have any questions again I invite you to PM me better yet I suggest posted a new thread with your questions or checking out the many threads where many agnostics and athiest have asked many of the same questions you have asked. I will not debate back and forth with you on the issuse unless in a debate forum because I don't want to derail the thread.

Because I don't want to cause this thread to get off-topic from what the OP requested

We're all discussing matters of faith, which makes it hard to say what's true or untrue. How is it rude though, for someone to say his belief of truth is true? That's like saying, "you can have your own take on things, but you can't really have your own take on things." "You can be a football player, but it's rude to play football." "You can be a Christian, but you can't profess that faith."



Because they are mutually exclusive. Either Christ is risen from the dead, or he's not. If what I see is true, and what you see is true, and those two things don't agree, that doesn't make both things true, it makes our judgement invalid. This is why Christians have faith in what they can't see: because we accept that everyone's individual sight is invalid. So thanks for proving our point.

Holiness has to do with closeness to God. It has nothing to do with you, Hannah. FHGlory can't offend you with his holiness, since that holiness is only between himself and his god. I believe the word you're looking for is "right." You should have said, "drop the whole more-right-than-I" attitude.

What confused with that as well offending you with holiness, I can't really offend someone with holiness because that is almost like me being offended with someone who has a close relationship with God or with someone who is pure. I can only be offended by conviction but that comes from the holy spirit not from me.

But it's completely possible to have your own opinion on things without saying that others' opinions are wrong. It's called "being respectful of others' opinions."


I'm not saying that Christians should believe that all religions are true. I'm saying that all Christians should accept that all religions have an equal possiblity of being true, and it's completely possible to believe that without running into any problems with the mutual exclusivity of all religions. After all, the possibility of something is not the same thing as the reality of something.


She's not more right, though, since religion is based on faith, not facts, and faith cannot be proven to be right or wrong like facts can.

And have you seriously never heard the term "holier than thou" in describing certain types of religious people? It's a common term used when religious people are displaying a large amount of arrogance, like ForHisGlory was.

I can still have a respectful and still share how I feel without comprising my beliefs/feelings and opinions. I will say not every religion is right and not everyone is wrong. That like saying yellow is yellow and yellow is purple that condricts itself. I can't accept everything that is in front of me and say everything is right because I am scared someone is convicted of it or objects to it or something. I have to tell the truth of what I believe with out sugar coating or lieing about it to make others feel better.

But if you have any further questions, comments or concerns or if you start a thread please send me the link and I will reply along with finding others. But if you send it to me, I will share the truth is all I will not keep debating about it, because that is a waste of time, unless your willing to research and understand what we are saying.

 

[KGirl]

This may be a bit farther back, but here's a response about God wanting us to avoid "fake" sin or however it was worded.
Also remember that God's thinking is more important then ours, so who are we to say something bad of His standards?
1 Thessalonians 5:22 (King James Version)


22Abstain from all appearance of evil.

 

[ForHisGlory2009]

This may be a bit farther back, but here's a response about God wanting us to avoid "fake" sin or however it was worded.
Also remember that God's thinking is more important then ours, so who are we to say something bad of His standards?
1 Thessalonians 5:22 (King James Version)


22Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Good post